Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I just wanted to point out that cost seemed to be used by you as an argument in favor of the use of drones by law enforcement, when according to four Supreme Court justices in certain cases lower cost can make it unconstitutional without first getting a warrant.

The only way I would see it being feasible to forbid government from using drones just because they're cheap, is to forbid it for everyone.

That might not be a bad idea (it's what we did for phone wiretapping), but then we still end up in a situation where the government has more power, as they would then exclusively control the use of public airspace for drones. Cops aren't the only ones who could make productive use of drones (nor is the government in general), so I'm not sure we'd want to make that tradeoff, at least unconditionally.




There's a slight misunderstanding here. It's not that we need to forbid the government from using drones when they are super cheap. Checks and balances are already at work here and are likely to arrive at a reasonable solution. Based on on the opinions of a few of the current Supreme Court, it seems highly likely that the government has to get a warrant to use a drone to follow someone around 24/7.

In my opinion the only thing to be concerned about is Ginsberg being replaced by Thomas/Scalia. If that happens, the way the Supreme Court will come down on this issue is not so clear. It's definitely something to worry about. According to a certain block in Congress, winning two presidential elections still doesn't entitle you to make appointments.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: